ARM505

No. With the Vikhr in LOMAC it could be done, but not with the realistic Vikhr in BS (it can't be done with the real missile either - I forget the technicalities, but something about the projected laser guidance 'grid' changing size automatically as the missile proceeds downrange, which corrects the dispersion problem of a beam rider. This system is not suited to guiding multiple missiles.)

DCS:BS's technical excellence in the modelling of the simulated platform only highlights the shortcomings in two 'worlds': 1) The online 'world': with no dedicated server software, it becomes tougher to set up persistant, controllable online battlegrounds. Witness the TK'ing etc that goes on, and the powerlessness (well, almost. Servman etc are helping, but it's not enough IMHO) that players and server managers have against offenders. 2) The virtual 'world': Simply put, not much happens when flying missions. I KNOW, the scripting of DCS:BS has greatly improved this over LO:FC, but you as the player still know that nothing happens that the mission designer didn't deliberately put there. Again, I KNOW Falcon 4's dynamic battlefield has plenty of limitations, but nonetheless, it still managed to make the player feel like just a small element of something larger. For me at least, F4's campaign worked well. I could pick and choose my flights and types of mission, knowing that I would face the chaos of a battlefield that had evolved on it's own. AI plays an enormous role in this 'suspension of disbelief' thing, and DCS's AI is a little lacking at the moment. This persistent battlefield present in F4 also helped the player to get to know the terrain he was fighting over, and built SA over time - you got to know where the frontlines were etc, and mission briefings somehow seemed more complete and 'alive' as you saw AI flights going about their business. With BS, I feel like I've been led to the heli with a black bag over my head, and am now told 'The bad guys are over there, go find them!'. I have no idea whats going on other than that. Just my thoughts.

Hi all, Does anybody other than Urze (who seems a little busy at the moment) make extensions for the Cougar, to move the joystick handle further from the base? Thanks!

I also found that the phantom monitor fix exe sometimes needs a bit of 'encouragement', ie I have to alt-tab out of DCS, and double click/unpause the script. Something like that, but I've found it doesn't simply work whilst leaving the exe running in the background - it may just be me or my system though.

Actually, I find this quite a significant limitation. IRL, a destroyed AFV can often look very much like an intact one (AT weapons being what they are, sometimes the only obvious outward sign is a tiny little hole, and some blast marks), and I've read of a number of occurences where tankers (for example) put multiple rounds through a target already destroyed by preceding forces, which is a tactically significant waste of time and ammo. Plus, in the game, you always know when a vehicle is destroyed, ie the Shkval loses lock - if they ever update the armour model, and multiple (but not a constant number like we have now) hits are required to destroy a target, this is going to become a lot more significant. Even now, when close range missile shots can sometimes impact close to, but not on target, it's too easy to know when your shots actually killed the target. I agree, this isn't some kind of obvious deal breaker - but it could certainly make quite some difference in how the game is played in many cases, since it impacts on the simulated platform's primary weapon. I'm sure the technical reasons for it being simulated this way are overriding though.

Could the manual be ring bound, in order to insert updates from .pdf's or something? My biggest gripe with fancy printed manuals is that many parts tend to become obsolete when it comes to something that evolves, like software (Falcon 4's ring bound manual was quite handy when it came to adding the multitude of extra manuals/updates now required)

Excellent work cypher. My fps seems pegged at 30 fps. I run quite low settings, and can sometimes get into the low 100's without multimonitor, but now it stays smoothly at 30 exactly - could this be as a result of windowed mode, or some kind of vsync issue? Vista 32, left monitor 1680X1050, right 1280X1024, ABRIS + TV on right monitor. GF8800GTS.

Going from maximum texture resolution to medium solved it in my case, using an 8800 GT 320 MB.

You may have noticed the other 1000 threads on this topic prior to your post.

We need this kind of detail! (When the octuple cores come out I suppose...) From the Steel Beasts armour model (mm RHA vs KE penetrator for T72, if memory serves me correctly) Of course, there is modelling for systems damage once the weapon actually makes it through the armour as well...

An age old problem, anyone remember the go-the-wrong-way-around-the-track dedication of some guys back in the GPL days? I mean, this guy (I'm thinking of one in particular) went to all the trouble of getting a decent PC (with 3DFX card in those days), a wheel, the sim, the internet connection, and all this just to crash into everyone on purpose during races? Huh? It might be baffling, but that's the reality of human nature - there's always at least one complete moron. And yes, BS's multiplayer interface is not going to help things.

Ground = best, but the view of the ground from the Ka50's cockpit is, by helo standards, pretty dismal, and hovering at altitude (if you needed to do it for some strange reason) also means you need to be at least familiar with the position needles when the HUD indication isn't available.

Pity, because workable 'depth of field' effects are currently used in stuff like ARMA, COD5 etc. But I suppose we could only call that a low priority, and it's still the best implementation of NVG's as has been said.

A previous thread discussed the AP stabilisation attempting to 'fight' the pilot - see this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38013 Again, according to some comments in the beginning of that thread from 'those in the know', the AP stab is supposed to avoid pushing against cyclic inputs. Is this maybe relevant?

They need to make it similar to the Cougar, in that the joystick handle itself should be easy to detach, and they should produce multiple quick change handles. The owner can then go for something more along the lines of what they want to use it for.

Badly. Just trust me. My second attempt, a nice, solid roll up blind, was a better idea.

Tanks are highly specialised weapons, extremely potent when properly applied. Of course, let's not forget that a combat engineer with a shovel, a pool of muddy water, or even a steep hill can also have their way with them at times!

Here's another sim that used 'pull for power' :D I award you ten internets if you guessed right!

Is there going to be any other way of getting these other than via the printed manual? Not to sound like a cheapskate or anything, and I suppose it's worthwhile to have a degree of exclusivity for those ordering the manuals (another path to earn some cash for ED, a good thing).

Just look at the green 'Start' or 'Valve' light (can't remember, something like that) just below the selector switch - once that's out, you can switch over. Sorry, not reading enough: like Vikbell said. Funny sig there Vikbell, so true! Or in our case, defensive break turns towards a spot on the monitor.

If you manage to break your chopper in half, you'll see the APU sitting there. Seriously!

Don't worry - I still get what you're saying, and still believe nobody has actually 100% caught the point. I was hoping for some 'official' input though. We'll see. I did some testing regarding this yesterday, and when pitching the nose down (for example) with the pitch AP engaged, definite pressure is required to hold the aircraft in a new pitch attitude. When the pitch AP is disengaged, this doesn't happen. Ergo, the pitch stabilisation is 'fighting' my input when I moved the nose from the 'trimmed' attitude. I use inverted comma's around trimmed because I know that the attitude isn't trimmed, merely the stick input. This seems to conflict with the quotes from EB etc when they state that moving the controls stops the AP pitch stabilisation from making corrective inputs AGAINST cyclic input. So, EiE, I do think I see your point.

Neither pulling nor pushing a fixed wing style of throttle is realistic, so do what you want - the argument that 'pulling' is more 'authentic' is ridiculous when you're moving your hand fore and aft, as opposed to the correct upwards and downwards (and therefore intuitive) motion.

I can't see anyone as having grasped the point of the OP - he's stating that in the REAL Ka50, the AP does not fight the pilot because it senses cyclic input (even without trimmer button depressed), and doesn't attempt to correct bank/pitch during input, whereas the simulated Ka50 appears to fight back against cyclic inputs - he's not asking how everybody is using the trimmer. Maybe I've read this too fast?